The Boston Tea Party: Patriots protesting against British tyranny, or criminal acts against a privately owned company?

Protesting is as American as apple pie. Our constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. We are allowed to freely express out opinions in public, as long as the exercise of our rights does not interfere with the rights of others. Attempting force others into agreeing with a certain position or at least paying lip service to it is in violation of their constitutional rights.

In short, just because you’re allowed to express your opinion does not give you the right to be taken seriously by others.

This whole affair with Chick-fil-A’s exposes the problems that a free society faces: whose right to freedom of speech is greater?

The owners of Chick-fil-A’s have been contributing to political candidates who are opposed to equal marriage. That IS their right to do so. When that became public, the owners also stated that they support traditional marriage. That, too, is their right, although why they would do that and alienate a large group of potential customers makes no good business sense. Perhaps they hoped to make it with with increased patronage from the far right.

Liberals and the gay community began to protest the actions of Chick-fil-A’s owners. That is their right. Protesting and boycotting businesses whose actions are seen as offensive to some segments of the community are accepted practices in America.

Mind you, I fail to see how same-sex couples being photographed kissing in front of a Chick-fil-A’s will really accomplish much of anything.

And we don’t have one in Rochester that I could boycott.

The far right claims that the protesters are denying the freedom of speech to the owners of Chick-fil-A’s. The protesters are doing no such thing. But then, the protesters themselves are exercising their freedom of speech.

Perhaps it’s being handled badly by everyone exercising their constitutional freedoms and protesting.

But this hasn’t been the first time.

Flashback to the American colonies. The year is 1773.

The British East India Company is stuck with a surplus of tea that they are having a tough time getting rid of. They know that tea is the second most popular drink in the American colonies; the first is rum. The Company wants to dump their tea on America at rock bottom prices; the British government is agreeable to this, since they want to establish the precedent of taxing the colonists, and set a small tax of 3 pennies per pound ( which is far lower than tea is taxed in Britain ). The Company’s tea, even with the tax, will be cheaper than ever before in America. Their ships, crammed with tea, set sail for Charleston, Philadelphia, New York City and Boston.

The smarter American colonials saw through this, and prepared NOT to buy the tea. They also threatened the merchants and shopkeepers with a boycott if they attempted to sell the Company’s tea. In Charleston, Philadelphia and New York City, the purveyors of the tea through their hands up in disgust and resigned their commissions. The boycott proved effective.

That left Boston.

The “patriots” in Boston were in a bit of a quandry. They understood the attempt of the British government to set a precedent for taxing the colonies by selling the tea so cheaply. Cheaper than usual even with the tax attached to it. According to historian Barbara Tuchman, the Boston “patriots” didn’t trust their fellow New Englanders, who were a thrifty lot always looking for a bargain. And a good many “patriots” involved in trade, like John Hancock, were also augmenting their incomes by smuggling Dutch tea; the Company’s cheap tea, even with the tax, would cut into their illegally gained profits.

So, there was no attempt at negotiations or boycotts.

Instead, a few colonials “disguised” themselves as Red Indians, although others did not, illegally boarded the British East India Company’s ship in Boston Harbor ( the crime of trespassing ) and dumped the tea over the side ( the crime of vandalism ).

In short, the “Boston Tea Party” was a criminal affair against a private company. The modern Tea Partiers claim to be the moral and spiritual heirs of theose “patriots.”

Fast forward to the twenty-first century.

The people protesting against Chick-fil-A’s are carrying signs, chanting and kissing in front of those establishments. They are not blocking traffic. They are not impeding the entrance and exiting of people patronizing its locations. They may be obnoxious to some customers. They are not breaking into them after dark and dumping their products into the parking lot.

Everyone is exercising their constitutional rights.

Even in Rochester, where there are no Chick-fil-A’s to be found, there are plenty of things for people to protest about. Some of the protesters are handling it in the right way, while others are not.

For example, a group of us assembled on the intersection of Monroe Avenue and South Goodman Street in the wake of a gay bashing incident that occurred near there two months prior. We were protesting the lack of information the police were providing the public about their investigation of the matter. We carried signs, marched along the sidewalk, chanted “We want answers…NOW!” and crossed at the proper times at the crosswalks. We did not impede pedestrians nor vehicle traffic. We did not block people entering or leaving stores. Some passers-by honked their horns, some gave us “thumbs up,” while others gave us the bird. And yes, there were half a dozen police cars stationed there, but there were no arrests, and the police didn’t tell us to leave. We exercised our right to freedom of speech and assembly, and didn’t break any laws doing it.

Last year, it was a different matter for the “Occupy Rochester” people. While nobody interfered with their freedom of assembly or freedom of speech in support of the “99%,” the occupiers did violate the law involving the closure of the parks at 11 PM, which DID result in arrests.

Two weeks ago, the occupiers were back to protest against capitalism, marching through the streets on the east side, eventually blocking both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. That, too, ended in arrests. Apparently, they forgot about the rights of the people NOT to be blocked by their actions.

Protesting in Rochester: Getting the idea across without breaking the law!

There was another kind of protest in Rochester this past weekend, a mock “pep rally for the rich,” put on by Rochester’s own social activists dear Anne Tischer, her wife Bess Watts, Ove Overmyer and a few others. They were in front of the Riverside Convention Center on Main Street, protesting a fundraiser for Maggie Brooks where the guest of honor was the Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. Dear Anne was clad in a wig and a tiara and wearing a faux fur coat ( on a day where the heat index was over 100! ), while Ove was wearing small top hat and a bow tie made of money. They carried signs emblazoned with the legends “Maggie for Millionaires,” “No Millionaire Left Behind” and others. They got their point across and didn’t block traffic and didn’t get arrested. The worst that happened to them was possible heat rash!

It is doubtful that most of the attendees knew what was happening out front, though. Most of the guests would have used the ramp garage on Stone Street and taken the closed bridge to the convention center. Anne and company might have made a greater impression if they camped it up there.

So, what’s the one conclusion I can bring this number to? We are allowed freedom of speech and assembly to protest and express dissent, but only so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others or breaks the law. My rights are the same as yours, neither greater nor lesser. And that includes my right to have an opinion about anything that goes on in public that may or may not affect me. Which is your right as well. Usually, both the far right and the far left forget that.

Contributors

Click on a blogger to see just their posts.

Rich Gardner has been writing about the history, culture and waterways of Upstate New York for years. His articles have appeared in U.S. and Canadian publications, and one book, Learning to Walk. He is an alumnus of Brighton High School and SUNY Geneseo. He operates Upstate Resume & Writing Service in Brighton and recently moved to Corn Hill, where he is already involved in community projects. "I enjoy the 'Aha!' moments of learning new things, conceptual and literal. City living is a great teacher."

Ken Warner grew up in Brockport and first experienced Rochester as a messenger boy for a law firm in Midtown Tower. He recently moved downtown into a loft on the 13th floor of the Temple Building with a view of the Liberty Poll and works in the Powers Building overlooking Rochester’s four corners as Executive Director for UNICON, an organization devoted to bringing economic development to the community. He hopes to use his Rochester Blog to share his observations from these unique views of downtown.